View Full Version : I'm voting for Labour. Not sure? Then go to www.omrlp.com
mike.mckenzie
28-Apr-05, 13:28
There we go, feel free to indulge in some inflammatory political debate about the impending general election.
Have you made your mind up?
Still the above website is good for a swipe at what's on offer.
gravedigga
28-Apr-05, 13:34
LOL
Their manifesto's great!!
Nice one!! [lol] :lol:
2little2late
28-Apr-05, 21:07
All cars will be converted to run on Venos to help stop congestion.
Excellent idea [lol] [lol]
Its a debateable argument on who to vote for the big question is does it really matter who gets in they all lie and say one thing and do another.
All things they talk about like nhs schools and so on it will take years for anyone to see huge difference no matter who gets in. for me i will vote labour because the other main party likely to win is conservative and i dont think micheal howard has got it in him to be a good leader
Yeeeeeeeeeeehah, I agree with Eddie on something at long last! In some ways I detest Tony Blair, his spin, and the despicable way he led us in to the Iraq war. But his government has been so damned successful economically that there ain't really any alternative.We have had stable economic growth for more than a decade, and Gordon Brown's management of the economy has been outstanding. His redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest has been quite remarkable, and it is even more remarkable that it has gone almost entirely unnoticed. We have oustripped Euroland's economic growth for years, and this will surely continue for a while unless Euroland changes its fiscal policy to something less short-sighted.
I have thought about this long and hard. I have read (at some level) all the party manifestos, and I always come to the same conclusion. Labour are head and shoulders above the rest. After almost two decades of Tory economic incompetence the Labour government is succeeding in an almost impossible job. They have invested in science, technology, education and the NHS -- not that there's much in the way of headline improvement in the latter unfortunately. I swore I would never again vote Labour until Blair had gone, but there really is nowhere else to go that makes much sense, economic or otherwise.
I have not based my decision on any ideology. It is based purely on who is going to make us richest. I am just glad that they are pretty fair too.
As Michael Howard said a few weeks ago "Vote Blair, get Brown". Yeah, he's right. :D
DrS, that all sounds a bit like Hitlers rise, economic victory and taking his country to war without legal cause. Although, I can't see Labour wiping out asylum seekers, that would more likely be the BNP with their armed public (after national service of course :roll: )
I've always liked the Loonies, at least they give the protest voters a reason to continue taking part in the democratic process.
I have some sympathy for your point of view. Indeed I sometimes thought similar things until I started thinking about hard economics and wondered how the deprived in society would ever get out of the rut that Thatcherism helped put them in: social mobility fell dramatically in the 80s and 90s, and it's still much lower than in the 60s and 70s. I then changed my mind. And there's none so convinced as the converted.
There are all sorts of things that Blair's Labour government has got wrong in some way: justification for the war in Iraq (sexing up the infamous WMD document), spin, lack of trust, identity cards, making a meal of something relatively minor like asylum seekers. But I think the economic positives outweigh the negatives by so much that I will still give them my vote.
Remember:
"It's the economy, stupid!"
The economy is doing well, and has been for years, so the opposition parties are keeping the discussion away from it. If the economy was doing badly then we'd hear nowt else.
I think Brown will take over within a couple of years and we will have forgotten about Blair by the following election.
The main problem with the Loonies is that they have a few sensible policies. They are not true loonies. :cool:
As you say, DrSzin, Blair (or should that be Brown?) has done well for the economy…
…but he has also allowed people to be imprisoned for years without trial, charge or accusation.
He has signed an agreement that allows a foreign government to extradite Britons from British soil without having to provide any evidence of a crime.
He has been complicit in the use of kidnap and torture by the same government, allowing them to use British airstrips to fly their victims to third-world countries and then accepting the ‘intelligence’ gained during their ‘interrogations’ there – his actions on this matter were described by a member of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee as ‘torture by proxy’.
He has passed legislation that allows you to be placed under house arrest without actually having to arrest (or charge) you with anything… and he put this power in the hands of politicians.
He stood in the House of Commons and told members (and us) that the intelligence against Saddam was ‘extensive, detailed and authoritative’ when, in fact, it was ‘limited, sporadic and patchy’. After he made that speech we went to war.
He personally authorised the naming of Dr Kelly – a decision which led to Dr Kelly’s death – and then denied any part in doing so when asked by a journalist.
I could go on (and on) but I’m just making myself angry…
The point is that ‘who is going to make us richest’ is all well and good – but there are much more important things than money.
The Pepsi Challenge
29-Apr-05, 14:22
DrSzin, I imagine you make a very good wage and live in a vibrant part of Edinburgh, no? Anyway, my point is:
Britain, and in particular, Scotland is going to pieces rapidly. This once proud nation of ours has finally run amok and is effectively out of control, and will not recover. The infrastructure is too far gone. The looting, cheating, stealing and failure have stripped this country of its assets, its pride, its success and its security. The National Treasury is empty, the Stock Market will never recover, our troops in Iraq will never come home. You will not find a job, ever again. Your children will drink dirty water for the rest of their lives. You will lose your home and all your personal savings. You will never be able to retire or even stop working, and you will be a serf, a terminally indentured servant to one of the vast anonymous and eternally war-like global corporations that will rule the world for their own reasons and profit.
I won't be voting Labour.
mike.mckenzie
29-Apr-05, 14:30
Last night's Leaser's question time proved to me that Tony Blair is still the best candidate to lead the country. He has intelligence, bravery to make the tough decisions, integrity and I believe he honestly does things for what he think (however misguided at times) may genuinely be for the best. He appeared on the defensive straight away, almost a touch nervous, but as he went on with the barrage of difficult and sometimes emotive questioning, seemed to rise to the occasion and provide some genuine reasoning and strong rebuttals to arguments. How many times did he have to explain the Lord Chief Justice was there in person to outline his recommendations.
Brown earned even more of my respect when he firmly backed the PM and amde the point, with no nonsense, that he would have taken the same action. Alll the parties would have, I believe.
3 posts further on and the Loonies look all the better for it.
If I was not in Scotland and voting for SNP then I think the loonies would get my vote, unless a good independent candidate was standing.
The Pepsi Challenge
29-Apr-05, 15:02
Last night's Leaser's question time proved to me that Tony Blair is still the best candidate to lead the country. He has intelligence, bravery to make the tough decisions, integrity and I believe he honestly does things for what he think (however misguided at times) may genuinely be for the best. He appeared on the defensive straight away, almost a touch nervous, but as he went on with the barrage of difficult and sometimes emotive questioning, seemed to rise to the occasion and provide some genuine reasoning and strong rebuttals to arguments. How many times did he have to explain the Lord Chief Justice was there in person to outline his recommendations.
Brown earned even more of my respect when he firmly backed the PM and amde the point, with no nonsense, that he would have taken the same action. Alll the parties would have, I believe.
Everyone in the world has the right to be mad, even you Mike. :o)
Have a look at www.theyworkforyou.com (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/) to make a judgement on your MP's performance.
You can see that, in the last year, John Thurso spoke in 39 debates and asked 318 written questions.
My local Labour MP, in comparison, has spoken in 2 debates and asked 0 written questions. I am left wondering what he actually does for his money.
Oh that's right, he voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws, very strongly for the Iraq war, and quite strongly for introducing ID cards. I guess he can be assured he's not getting my vote. :evil
Wow, I have ruffled a few feathers here -- good. I'm glad I have awoken you from your dreaming slumbers.
Pepsi, I disagree with everything you say in your (long) second paragraph. Quite remarkable really; I am amazed that anyone can say so many incorrect things at once. ;)
Seriously, why are you so negative? What can we do? Perhaps you will simply emigrate and leave this once-proud country to go to the wall?
Since I wrote the posts above, I have been reading Polly Toynbee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Archive/0,5673,-25,0.html) again. In particular, I read this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1471139,00.html). She says similar things, but she writes so much more clearly and cogently than I do. The article is entitled:
Angry Labour voters don't care about social justice
It is a kind of decadence to make the war in Iraq the deciding factor
JJC, I think Polly must know you because the title is surely aimed squarely at you. I thought what you think, but then I started thinking about what is really important. As you see, I have since changed my mind.
Amongst other things, Polly writes:
But for many Labour voters the war appears to take priority; it is a kind of decadence that makes distant things easier to feel passionately about than the messiness of difficult social policy at home. For all its deficits and cowardice, for all its disappointments and missed opportunities, this Labour government remains the most redistributive in my lifetime. Yet it is nowhere near enough and the time is suddenly short.
I agree with her -- I think. Well, I agree with her today, anyway...
Wealth creation is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all. Social justice and edistribution of that increased wealth to the poorest members of society are absolutely and utterly paramount. I do not believe that any other party would or could do it. The Lib Dems wouldn't do the latter -- they would spend the money on the middle classes.
Ok guys, for whom will you vote and why? It is sooo easy to accentuate the negative. Be positive and convince me. You probably won't be able to. I have heard most of the arguments already. Then again, you just might. I will admit that I am playing Devil's Advocate to some extent, and I still have to convince myself that I believe what I'm saying. We still have 6 days to change our minds.
What do you guys want to happen? What is your dream? A Tory victory and a Michael Howard government ? Surely not?
What about Charles Kennedy holding the balance of power? Maybe you do indeed want a hung parliament in which Blair has resigned as Labour leader because he has been defeated, and Howard forms a minority government. It probably wouldn't get far, he would call an election, ask the people for a chance to do the job properly, and win with an overall majority. Precedent would indicate precisely that outcome -- think of 1964/66 and the two elections of 1974. Harold Wilson won the second consecutive election by a bigger margin on both occasions. I am simply not willing to take that risk: I don't want to end up with a Howard government.
Maybe you want a narrow Labour victory in which Blair feels defeated, promptly resigns and Brown takes over? Again, I think the risk of Howard is too big.
Voting SNP is fine, their inclusive social policies are great, but they won't form the government and I think their economic plans are based on a house of cards, and a 1970s one at that. I would (probably) seriously consider voting for them for Holyrood in two years' time, but not now.
We just don't know what you guys want unless you tell us. Zael and Mike have told us. Pepsi, JJC & Drutt -- it's your turn...
Alananders68
29-Apr-05, 16:42
If I was not in Scotland and voting for SNP then I think the loonies would get my vote, unless a good independent candidate was standing.
I don't see the point in voting SNP when they haven't got a chance of getting into No 10, it's always between Labour and Conservatives and there both as bad as each other. We can only dream of a party such as the British National ever getting in.
We can only dream of a party such as the British National ever getting in.
And back in the real world, I'll just be grateful that they won't.
Another quiz - Who Should You Vote For? (http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/scotland.php)
Last night's Leaser's question time proved to me that Tony Blair is still the best candidate to lead the country.
You’re kidding… aren’t you?
The audience kicked Bliar around the room for a solid 30 minutes last night. Not only on Iraq, but also on tuition fees, stealth taxes, his relationship with Bush and GP waiting times.
In fact, he was so caught off-guard by the GP waiting times issue that John Reid had to appear on This Morning this morning and own up to the fact that he’s known all about the problems for over a year (and yet this is the first Bliar heard of it?).
The final nail in Bliar’s coffin was when Dimbleby asked him why he was the only party-leader who refused to take part in a US-style debate with the other leaders and almost the entire audience starting laughing (with shouts of ‘coward’ and ‘yellow’).
No, I think that we must have been watching entirely different programmes if you thought that performance has proven him fit to continue as PM. :eek:
Well i reckon if micheal howard puts in his manefesto that the normal working week stops at friday lunchtime he would be the next prime minister what do u think
How many times did he have to explain the Lord Chief Justice was there in person to outline his recommendations.
He said something else about Goldsmith’s presence at the Cabinet meeting too… he said that he was there to outline his recommendations and to answer the questions from the Cabinet members.
Of course, in an interview on PM yesterday Patricia Hewitt, who had only just expressed her personal interest in international law, said the same thing. She was then asked what questions she had asked the Attorney General. It turns out she didn’t ask him anything. So who did ask questions? Surprisingly, she couldn’t recall a single question being asked.
So we have the Cabinet members meeting to discuss possibly the most important decision they will ever make, the ramifications of which could affect everybody – not only in this country but across the entire world. The Government’s lawyer came in and told them that waging a war on Iraq would be legal. And not one of them – not one – asked him a question.
If that is how Cabinet meetings are run under Blair then I think I’m starting to see how it is that he had no clue about the salient details of the 45-minute claim! :roll:
JJC, I think Polly must know you because the title is surely aimed squarely at you. I thought what you think, but then I started thinking about what is really important. As you see, I have since changed my mind.
I’ve long since ceased to be a ‘Labour Voter’ – angry or otherwise. And although the war in, and subsequent occupation of, Iraq is pretty high on my list of reasons why, it is by no means the deciding factor.
In fact there is no deciding factor. There is nothing that I can look at and say “If it weren’t for that I’d be voting for Labour”.
But to give you an idea of what kind of thing has turned me away, here’s a short list of some of the votes cast by my Labour MP which I disagree with:
- Against an amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to make all control orders at the discretion of a judge.
- For those control orders.
- For identity cards.
- Didn’t bother voting on the hunting ban.
- For foundation hospitals.
- For an all-appointed House of Lords.
- For the war in Iraq without a second resolution.
- Against a motion to block government plan to limit incapacity benefit.
- Against a motion to block government plans to cut benefits to lone parents.
- For tuition fees.
I agree with her -- I think. Well, I agree with her today, anyway...
I do, and I don’t. The economy is doing well – there’s no denying that. But as today’s debacle with waiting times for GP appointments (which culminated in a hasty promise from Blair to reduce the number of NHS targets) shows, everything is not always as it seems.
Social justice and edistribution of that increased wealth to the poorest members of society are absolutely and utterly paramount.
I heard an article on the radio earlier today about the life expectancies of the richest and poorest members of our society. Back in 2001 Labour promised to reduce the gap by 2010. We’re half-way there and not only is the gap not getting smaller, it is actually widening by 0.15 years per year. Social justice?
As for redistribution– the poorest 10% of our society receive just 3% of the national income compared to the richest 10% who receive more than 25%. Where’s the redistribution? Where’s the social equality?
Ok guys, for whom will you vote and why? It is sooo easy to accentuate the negative. Be positive and convince me.
I’ve accepted that Labour is going to win. All this guff from Blair about a vote for the LibDems being a vote for Howard in Downing Street is a Machiavellian attempt to frighten us into giving him back the majority he needs to push through more democracy-eroding bills in the next Parliament…
I’ll be voting LibDem. Not only because they are the only party who seem to have been voting as I would have voted for the past few years, but also because the Tories have had their chance in opposition and have shown themselves to be singularly unfit for the job.
When Blair stands at the dispatch box after the election I want him to be looking at an opposition that is more interested in what they believe than in what they believe will get them elected next time around.
Okay, so it’s probably a pipe-dream that the LibDems will become the second party next week; but I’m still casting my ballot for them because I like what they have done. I could vote tactically but that would mean giving my support to a party whose policies I don’t agree with and whilst my vote may be only one amongst millions it is the only one I have and I have no intention of giving it away.
A Tory victory and a Michael Howard government ? Surely not?
I say again, Blair’s scare-mongering about a vote for the LibDems opening the back door for Howard is a transparent attempt to keep his huge majority. Look at the polls. Labour are going to win. The only question is by how much.
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Apr-05, 03:25
The question is not whether Blair is acting more and more like the head of a fascist government - and that should we vote him back in - but if the people of Britain want it that way. That is what this election is all about. We are down to nut-cutting time, and millions of people are angry. They want a Regime Change.
Some people say that Tony Blair should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the swine out of Downing Street next week.
Szin: you still haven't answered my question.
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Apr-05, 03:47
What's the term George Orwell used ( in 1984) to describe the lengths a politician leader - or any party challenging for power for that matter - would go to, to achieve total power? I'm sure it was somewhere along the lines of "sticking needles in babies' eyes" or words to that effect. Our political leaders will say anything to get elected. I had three candidates from the main parties round my house this week. It was the first time I'd seen them since the last election. They were told where to go.
Years ago, when the first Scottish election was taking place, I met Jim Wallace at a Lib-dems party meeting in Edinburgh. I told him that I wanted to go to university but couldn't afford to because of tuition fees. He said if I voted Liberal they would abolish tuition fees and I'd be able to go to university. Sure enough, the Lib-dems ended up sharing power with Labour and my application for university was accepted. However, by the time I came to registering - two days into my course - I (rather naively) realised the Lib-dems, sorry, Jim Wallace, had gone back on his promise. I had to pay. So I left.
Months later I bumped into Mr. Wallace again. I told him he was a liar and that I never could take up a place at university. His reply? After much bumbling and rambling, he said something along the lines of "What I said was merely political rhetoric."
So there you have it. They sold my vote down the river. I haven't voted since.
This reminded me of a an open letter to Tony Blair, written to him by a student who lived not too far from my then-Edinburgh home:
"Dear Prime Minister,
I'm from a part of my town where the average income is £6,500 roughly. You would put us in social class IV, I'd say. The drug problem is rife in my area, violent crime is high and most children leave school in 4th year, or as soon as possible.
I am at university doing medicine. I'm going to be a doctor.
You might say I'm doing well for myself considering most of my age group are unemployed and on drugs somewhere. I had to take out a loan. I had to take out another loan to pay for a computer for myself (my parents can't afford it). So not only am I in £3,000 worth of debt for each of the five years of my course, but I've another £1,500 debt for that.
To deal with this I have to work 15 to 30 hours a week. In addition to this I'm doing medicine, which I'm sure you know is pretty demanding stuff. I work 30 hours a week, study when I can, never mind a social life, and I'm £16,000 in debt.
Is this any way to treat someone trying to better themselves?
Would I be better being unemployed and giving up at university? I wouldn't like to think so, that's why I'm at university, so my kids don't grow up in an area like mine.
I get taxed too, even though I'm in debt, a student and working to pay to live.
Why am I being punished? You go on about tackling deprivation by increasing opportunities and getting more "poor" kids into university. Well I made it, but I don't know if my two sisters will if this situation keeps up."
Alison
To be honest about i think its terrible that people wanting to better themselves have to take out loans to get themselves through university.Especialay when there is a shortage with doctors nurses, teachers,dentist and so on.To me if that person has the abilty to go through university and succeed in what there studying and cant afford to do it themselves then it should be substisized so it gives everyone the chance to better themselves no matter what background they come from and if it means raising taxes then i would not mind.
For me i havent got a problem paying tax or nhs even if gos up but i do have problem when the money isnt getting spent properly and its being wasted on Red tape pay directors hgh salarys and so on.
I just wish the polititions would get to grip of value for money instead of wasting it on all the wrong things
Szin: you still haven't answered my question.
You answered it yourself, well kind of...
DrSzin, I imagine you make a very good wage and live in a vibrant part of Edinburgh, no?
A very good wage? No. Significantly higher than the average UK wage? Yes. But surely not "very good".
Vibrant? It depends what you mean by "vibrant". Affluent, certainly, but not socially vibrant.
You are dead right about one thing though: this government has done nothing for what one might call "social mobility". In fact, things have got significantly worse: the long-term reduction in student grants, followed by their abolition and the introduction of tuition fees, is responsible for some of the regression. I wouldn't care to hazard a guess as to how much. Any suggestions?
As jjc points out, differences in health expectancy have widened too. This is truly appalling.
But you still haven't said who you want to see in government after the election. I am being practical here. I think a hung parliament would lead to a second swift election which the Tories would win; this is irrespective of whether Labour or the Tories win the most seats in the first election. Charles Kennedy has said he won't go into coalition with Labour. Neither Blair nor Brown could lead a minority Labour government for long: the former would be out the door within days, the latter would have to call a snap election on an unwilling public, and I think he would probably lose it. A Howard-led minority government might last a little longer; Howard would then call an election and ask for a mandate. I think he would get it -- no-one will want to back a losing Labour Party for a second time.
If you want Howard as PM, then you might as well vote for him now and be done with.
Labour will not get a large majority at this election; Blair will be mortally wounded and he won't last a year.
Well, that's what I think. And it's also what I hope.
If Blair does win with a big majority, and I think this is possible, then I will look a little stupid, and I am sure you and jjc will enjoy pointing this out in public. :D
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Apr-05, 14:23
But you still haven't said who you want to see in government after the election.[quote]
Anarchy.
[quote] If Blair does win with a big majority, and I think this is possible, then I will look a little stupid, and I am sure you and jjc will enjoy pointing this out in public. :D
If he does, I wouldn't enjoy pointing it out in public. Least not to you; I respect you far too much to do that.
I've always had an instinctual liking for Tony Blair as a person. For that reason some of the posts in this thread, for me, are more amusing and self revealing about the posters than the object of their fury, Tony Blairs character.
Personally I would rather be lied to by Tony Blair than either Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy. :roll:
I dont expect truth from my political leaders so I am not disappointed when the obvious happens. When I live in a crazy world I expect the crazy to happen. :(
That being said I would love to have the vision to see how this particular episode in human history fits into the overall process of human evolution in say a 1000 years or so.
For me, whether Tony Blair lied or not is not the issue. The issue for me is tyrants who make peoples lives misery and people who are prepared to blow themselves and thousands of innnocents to kingdom come because of some warped perception of reality they have been brought up with from early childhood. [mad] These are very dangerous people with a warped and misguided view of their world centred around their own personal issues. They have to be stopped but I am also aware of why these young men and women act the way they do. It takes 2 to tango.
Some day, probably in a zillion years, human beings may become aware of their true potential and with it the responsability we all could accept in our own little worlds on a daily basis. Blame the other guy is the motto of the moment.
Who is responsable for our unruly children? Who is responsable when a young girl goes missing? Whose blame is it that the world is on a precipice?
Personally I accept my share of responsability in all this mayhem. I dont expect Tony Blair to sort my worlds problems out without some input from me. I dont give any output apart from moaning from behind a pc monitor, so when my society votes for its leaders, I get the leaders I deserve. :(
The Pepsi Challenge
02-May-05, 00:37
I've always had an instinctual liking for Tony Blair as a person. For that reason some of the posts in this thread, for me, are more amusing and self revealing about the posters than the object of their fury, Tony Blairs character.
Personally I would rather be lied to by Tony Blair than either Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy. :roll:
I dont expect truth from my political leaders so I am not disappointed when the obvious happens. When I live in a crazy world I expect the crazy to happen. :(
That being said I would love to have the vision to see how this particular episode in human history fits into the overall process of human evolution in say a 1000 years or so.
For me, whether Tony Blair lied or not is not the issue. The issue for me is tyrants who make peoples lives misery and people who are prepared to blow themselves and thousands of innnocents to kingdom come because of some warped perception of reality they have been brought up with from early childhood. [mad] These are very dangerous people with a warped and misguided view of their world centred around their own personal issues. They have to be stopped but I am also aware of why these young men and women act the way they do. It takes 2 to tango.
Some day, probably in a zillion years, human beings may become aware of their true potential and with it the responsability we all could accept in our own little worlds on a daily basis. Blame the other guy is the motto of the moment.
Who is responsable for our unruly children? Who is responsable when a young girl goes missing? Whose blame is it that the world is on a precipice?
Personally I accept my share of responsability in all this mayhem. I dont expect Tony Blair to sort my worlds problems out without some input from me. I dont give any output apart from moaning from behind a pc monitor, so when my society votes for its leaders, I get the leaders I deserve. :(
Forigve me, but wha...?
SandTiger
02-May-05, 00:58
Arsed if I'm gonna read this thred, politiks has no use here [lol] [lol] :eyes
The Pepsi Challenge
02-May-05, 12:28
One in every hundred people have, at one time, registered as homeless. Rock on Labour. I no longer call Edinburgh Auld Reekie, Sao Paulo more like. I see so many homeless people on the streets of Edinburgh these days, I find it hard to believe we live in the developed world. Even putting a plastic or metal-sheet covering over them at night would be better than having them sleep in the freezing cold and rain. Unreal. Take that to the polls, Labour.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=467752005
The Pepsi Challenge
04-May-05, 03:20
Just been looking at the list of candidates running for election for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
Is it really the case that SSP candidate, Luke Ivory, is the only candidate who was born, brought up, and continues to live within the Highlands? The others, from what I can see, know diddly squat about our region. Most of them have little or no affiliation with the counties. Look at Labour's rep - all he knows about Caithness is stopping off at his granny's before heading to Stromness. Eh? How can you put your faith in someone like that? And judging on what John (I still laugh at this) "Thurso" has 'done' for the maternity unit debacle in Wick, I wouldn't be rushing out to vote him in either.
Good luck.
webmannie
04-May-05, 07:18
yeh right!
Rheghead says "Vote Labour! It's the economy that matters". Without a strong economy, the others can go on till they are blue in the face and nothing will be achieved. Gordon Brown is the most successful and proven chancellor of the excheqer ever.
Rheghead says "Vote Labour! It's the economy that matters". Without a strong economy, the others can go on till they are blue in the face and nothing will be achieved. Gordon Brown is the most successful and proven chancellor of the excheqer ever.
“You can do whatever you like just so long as you make me wealthy on your way” is a pretty self-absorbed attitude towards your fellow man… and if you don’t mind me saying so I think you need a new signature. [disgust]
The Pepsi Challenge
05-May-05, 10:12
Labour, eh? How millions per day do they spend on Iraq? How much do we need to keep the maternity unit open in Wick? Hmm... I'm sure they could have given us some loose change.
On my way to the polls.
Voting Independent.
mike.mckenzie
06-May-05, 10:28
Well, i voted Labour, but I predict a really rough ride for the government over the next 2-3 years with the size of majority they have. A similair size heralded the end of the Tories under Major, I only hope and pray it does not go full circle next time around. I'm leaving Britain if there is a tory in charge of our country.
I'm leaving Britain if there is a tory in charge of our country.
Didn't you notice? There already is!
mike.mckenzie
06-May-05, 11:31
Good job I live in Ibiza then!
Seriously though, the only way Labour could beat the Tories back in the 90's was to adopt a middle right position. I think they have done a good job since and I will stick ny them as long as they managing the economy the way it is, keep introducing the checks on the antisocial and look after gun crime they way they have already.
Just make sure they put through the 24 hour drinking bill and I'll be happy!
Full marks to Tony and his cronies for the blatant bit of opportunism I have just witnessed on the TV.
Lets go and have our audience with the Queen to reform her government, just as the Changing Of The Guard is about to take place. There will be 100's of tourists outside Buck Palace waiting for this ceremony to happen (changing the guard, not Tony going for a brew with Liz).
That will look good on the TV and in the photos, all the happy smiling faces of people waiting (they may even wave thinking it is someone important).
I know, take the Grinning Frog along as well - quite why she needs to be there was pointed out by Dimbleby and that "awful man" Witchell (surprised he dare set foot inside the walls of Buck Palace after Charlies remarks - next stop The Tower...)
All a good photo opportunity, and then did he think about waiting for the Guards to finish their changeover? Oh no!! Lets sweep out of the place right in the middle of the changeover, driving around the assembled scarlet ranks as if he was taking part in a car trial!
Are there no depths that New Liar, sorry Labour will stoop to to?
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
mike.mckenzie
06-May-05, 13:04
Thats as cynical a view as it gets really
Full marks to Tony and his cronies for the blatant bit of opportunism I have just witnessed on the TV.
I’m pretty sure that the smarmy little twerp met with the Queen at Her Majesty’s convenience and not the other way around…
Certainly, having listened to the tone of the ‘celebration’ speech he made when he got back to Number 10, I’d be inclined to think that he’s not having his best day ever. I think it’s dawned on him that a majority of only 60 or 70 isn’t enough to force through his ‘legacy’ – and that having only (an estimated) 22% of our votes means that he most certainly cannot claim any kind of a mandate for doing so anyway.
Oh… wait… I spoke too soon (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=126). 22%? A mandate? Maybe in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but nowhere else! :eek:
The Pepsi Challenge
06-May-05, 13:49
Another four years of misery.
My council tax is up even higher now, I can't go to university 'cause it's too expensive (education is a right not a privilege - isn't it?), and all the while I'm being nannied by Labour - you can't do this, you can't do that.
Labour spend millions of pounds on Iraq when a ocean-drop would keep Caithness' maternity unit open. And everyday under their goevernment feels like 1984 and not 2005. Oh well, so long as we keep buying clothes from high street stores, watching mind-numbing television shows, and going private, we'll all be fine under Tony.
He keeps me so downtrodden and dumb, I'm too fixated with staving off poverty and getting through the day to worry about changing anything or bettering myself. Well, that's my view. What's yours then?
mike.mckenzie
06-May-05, 14:33
40% of post higher and A level students want to go to Uni....who's going to pay? I've been and I have to pay back a student loan. You want an education, pay for it yourself, what's the harm in that?
40% of post higher and A level students want to go to Uni....who's going to pay?
I don't think the numbers who 'want to' or even the numbers that the Labour party want to increase it to is a justifiable reason. Why send 40-50% of school leavers to university when there aren't close to enough graduate-level jobs to warrant it? A large number of graduates are in jobs they could have got after just a year or two at college. There are even graduates in roles they could have got straight out of school.
Instead they were persuaded that getting up to their eyebrows in crippling debt was a great idea because they'd get such a well-paid job at the end of it. It doesn't work out that way for many... it's not that they're not looking, it's that there aren't enough top jobs to go round.
I've been and I have to pay back a student loan. You want an education, pay for it yourself, what's the harm in that?
The traditional idea was that graduates would go into well-paid graduate jobs, progress into even better paid jobs, and pay for their education through paying high taxes. Now that university places are being increased, graduates who've become trainee managers at McDonalds aren't really paying their way through tax.
The high student debts are having widespread effects though - young people can't afford to buy houses; they're putting off having children because they can't afford to; and meanwhile the UK is facing population and pension crises. Do you believe these issues are not linked?
mike.mckenzie
06-May-05, 16:03
Sorry, I should have phrased more accurately, approximately 40% of post A level and Higher students go to university, they have taken opportunities made available to them and now, because such a high number have the ambition and intelligence to go and better themselves, and because it has become the norm to go into further education, we have a numbers crisis and a situation where the cost is not being met, hence the need for those seeking education to pay for it. There aren't enough tax payers to pay for it.
I am aware of the debt cycle, but it can be redressed. If you have talent, intelligence and work hard, you will manage to get out of the poorer jobs many graduates find themselves in and start to earn more the longer you work. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean a high income is yours by right.
Pension crises are linked to our ageing population and longer life span. People are living longer.
Thats as cynical a view as it gets really
Its my view, cynical or not.....
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/flaminmad.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif
Sorry, I should have phrased more accurately, approximately 40% of post A level and Higher students go to university, they have taken opportunities made available to them and now, because such a high number have the ambition and intelligence to go and better themselves, and because it has become the norm to go into further education, we have a numbers crisis and a situation where the cost is not being met, hence the need for those seeking education to pay for it. There aren't enough tax payers to pay for it.
I agree that currently (and prospectively, if Labour gets its way) there are too many students for the tax payer to pay for. We just disagree on how to address it.
You believe that students should pay directly for their education. I believe students are misled about their prospects, that higher education should never have been expanded to the degree that it has been, and that the tax payer should be paying for a smaller number of students to go to university, because our society and economy do benefit from them doing so. Chances are the correct approach is somewhere in between our perspectives.
I am aware of the debt cycle, but it can be redressed. If you have talent, intelligence and work hard, you will manage to get out of the poorer jobs many graduates find themselves in and start to earn more the longer you work. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean a high income is yours by right.
Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest that graduates should get the best jobs just because they have a degree. Of course it should be on merit. But there's little point in misleading school leavers about their prospects. Yes, they may work themselves up. For some of them their progress may be accelerated because they have a degree. Others may well find that they'd have progressed faster if they'd just spent those years in work rather than education. Lots of our most successful entrepreneurs went straight into work from school.
In essence, I just feel that our drive for debt at all costs (including student debts) will prove to have nasty implications for our society.
Pension crises are linked to our ageing population and longer life span. People are living longer.
People certainly are living longer, I wouldn't dispute it. But our pensions crisis, particularly with regard to NI contributions and subsequent payouts, exists because it is anticipated that there will be far too many pensioners claiming state pensions, with not enough workers paying tax to pay those pensions. Our future demographics crisis - inevitable because people are putting off having children, or just not having children at all, often partly due to affordability issues - will compound the pension problem.
This is why I laugh when people demand an end to immigration. We need immigration. We need it now because otherwise we wouldn't find any vegetables in the supermarket, and we need it in the future because otherwise there won't be anyone to work in the nursing homes or to pay for them. I have a funny feeling euthanasia will be legalised long before I reach my old age. Sorry, getting a trifle off topic now. :)
Rheghead says "Vote Labour! It's the economy that matters". Without a strong economy, the others can go on till they are blue in the face and nothing will be achieved. Gordon Brown is the most successful and proven chancellor of the excheqer ever.
“You can do whatever you like just so long as you make me wealthy on your way” is a pretty self-absorbed attitude towards your fellow man… and if you don’t mind me saying so I think you need a new signature. [disgust]
Sorry for not biting fully on your sanctimonious comments, but I will only have a nibble.
I didn't mean that you should vote for the party that will make you rich, as you quite rightly say about being self absorbed etc. But there is a difference in wanting a strong economy which provides an honest living for the most of us. Whether someone else gets rich is purely their business, for me, I just want to make ends meet and have the odd luxury.
Sorry for not biting fully on your sanctimonious comments, but I will only have a nibble."
No need to apologise... I meant every word I said and really couldn't care if you 'bite' or not.
I'll gladly admit that Labour has been good for the economy... but that's the general economy and whilst I am fortunate enough to have reaped some of the benefits, the same most certainly cannot be said for everybody.
If I'm given the choice (which I was) between a government that will be good for the economic situation of most of us whilst eroding my civil liberties and destroying the judicial system and a government which will protect my liberties and the judicial system but may not be quite so good for my bank balance then I am quite happy to say that I would choose (and did choose) the latter.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.